Shiel v. Cook Cnty.

• Decision Date: 30 March 1891
• Citation: 137 Ill. 46,27 N.E. 293
• Parties: SHIEL v. COOK COUNTY. SAME v. CITY OF CHICAGO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

137 Ill. 46

27 N.E. 293

SHIEL

v.COOK COUNTY.¹

SAME

v.CITY OF CHICAGO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 30, 1891.

Appeal from appellate court, first district.

Wm. C. Niblack, (S. S. Gregory, of counsel,) for appellant.

W. G. Ewing, for appellee county.

Jonas Hutchinson and Morris St. P. Thomas, for appellee city.

SHOPE, J.

The question presented by the record in the first-entitled cause is whether, under the act of 1889, providing for the holding of primary elections by voluntary political parties or associations, the judges and clerks of such primary elections and performing the duty thereat are entitled to compensation therefor to be paid out of the county treasury. The question in the second is whether the city is liable for such services. No provision whatever is made in the act for compensation to the persons who shall act as judges and clerks of such primary elections, nor is there any provision rendering applicable to such elections the provisions for compensation contained in the general election laws. The act would seem to be a complete code within itself, providing for the free, fair, and uncorrupted exercise by the voter of his choice of candidates of his party at the approaching election, or for his representatives in the convention or caucus of his party thereafter to be held. The adoption of the mode prescribed by the act is purely voluntary with the party or its controlling committee or board, and may be adopted at one election and omitted at another, at its pleasure or convenience. Any party, however large or insignificant its members as compared with the whole body of voters in the territory within which the officer is to be chosen, may, by conforming its notice to the requirements of the act, hold its primaries under it, while all others may omit to do so, and select their candidates in such mode as shall to them seem most desirable. When, however, the primary election system has been adopted, and the machinery provided has been put in motion by competent authority within the political party or association of individuals, the act prescribes the qualifications of voters at such primary, the manner in which the election shall be conducted, and the result ascertained and declared, and lays down rules and regulations in respect thereof, intended to prevent fraud and corruption, and secure in the result the honest expression of the will of the qualified voters. Similar laws have been enacted in a large number of the states of the Union, and the power of the legislature to enact them has never been questioned, so far as we are aware. Whatever tends to corrupt elections in a free government, or detracts from the efficiency and honesty of the public service, must needs be a matter of grave public concern; and all methods which have for their object the prevention of those abuses, which every good citizen has observed with profound apprehension, by which incompetent and corrupt men have been chosen to offices of trust and power, should be commended and upheld. And we agree with counsel that liberal construction should be given to all laws having for their object the selection of candidates for the suffrage of the people by the uncorrupted and honest choice of the party, or association of voters selecting them, as well as to all other laws intended to conserve the purity of our elective system. But, however wise and beneficent this law may be considered, such considerations can furnish no excuse for the appropriation of the public funds by these mere political and governmental agencies to uses not authorized by law. Counties are mere political subdivisions of the state for governmental purposes; and towns, villages, and cities are mere instrumentalities of government, and each may levy and collect taxes for purposes granted...